This is the sort of thing that websites like this can do better than
almost any other venue - actual real time feedback with relevant
information.

I definitely will read the full transcript of your testimony as I think it will be very informative.

There is one comment/question I would have before I do, and I will
be very surprised if you investigated this as part of your study, but
on the other hand maybe you did as you seem very thorough.

I'll amend what I just said. I went back and reread your comment so
the possible non inclusion of what I am about to ask in your study
would have been no fault of your own. You seem to say that for the
information relating to government agencies you relied on the data that
OPM gave you.

Since we are discussing the advantages of converting to performance
based pay to improve our performance in the area of “Performance Based
Rewards and Advancements” I think there may have been a third set of
statistics which OPM did not provide to you which would have been very
interesting.

The government is promoting the new personnel systems and pay for
performance as a way of rewarding top performers. I have seen the first
round of NSPS regulations, and if you consider their cumulative effect
on an employee's financial future - the goal is primarily to control
costs both while the employees is actively working and into retirement
more than to reward top performers.

My personal analysis of the governments motive aside let's get to
the third set of statistics you may not have had access to, and you are
the most reliable source I could ask this question of.

Did OPM allow you to analyze the comparative performance of all of
their pay for performance pilot projects in relation to private
industry?

Did they give you access to individuals of your own choosing who
worked in these pilot projects to ask them if they preferred the GS
type personnel system or the pay for performance pilot project system
better?

Did OPM inform you of the class action complaint filed by FAA
employees because their wages which counted toward retirement were
capped under their pay for performance system (incidentally the same
capping provision is written into both the DHS and NSPS personnel
systems).

My apology - that was definitely more than one question, but my
point was that you may not have seen all the relevant information if
you only had access to what OPM would let you see or consider.

Your ability to analyze the information would seem more than adequate if it were provided.

****

I just finished reading your testimony. I can see that OPM did not
provide you with any of the information I just asked about. Somehow I
am not surprised, but that is certainly not your fault.

I did read many points in your testimony, but a couple of them stood out for me.

Enabling two way communications between employees and their agency is excellent.

The annual surveys that you recommend to gauge employee job
satisfaction is another good idea. The new systems will require very
close oversight, but I have read that the results of the surveys may be
withheld if they contain information which is defined as sensitive.

In other words they may be concealed if needed.

Thank you for your response. It was a pleasure reading it and your testimony as well.

Some have taken my assertion that the federal pay system is “no
longer good enough to attract and retain the best and the brightest”
and extrapolated that to suggest that I’m saying that all federal
employees hired under the current system must be the dumb and the
dullest. Not true – by a long shot.

The point I was making is that without the ability to reward
high-performers financially for a job well done, the federal government
is competing for talent with one hand tied behind its back.

How do I know that most federal workers are turned off by the
current pay system, putting federal agencies at a competitive
disadvantage when it comes to recruiting and retaining talent? Because
that’s what they have told us.

My team at the Partnership for Public Service works with American
University to analyze OPM’s human capital survey to come up with a
product we call our Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings.
To develop our rankings, we look at 10 different workplace environment
factors like “Effective Leadership” and “Mission Match.” One of the
areas where agencies scored worst was “Performance Based Rewards and
Advancement.” At 23 or 30 major agencies, the majority of workers are
dissatisfied with performance based rewards and advancement, and only
43% of federal workers across government were satisfied. We also
compared these workplace dimension scores to private sector ratings,
and the largest gaps with top performing companies are found in
rewarding workers for providing high quality services (25 points lower
in government).

There’s a scene in The Untouchables, when Sean Connery delivers one of
the all-time great movie lines: “They pull out a knife. You pull out a
gun. They put one of your men in the hospital. You put one of theirs in
the morgue. That’s the Chicago way. And that’s how you get Capone.” The
way I see it, when it comes to performance based rewards and
advancement, the private sector has pulled out a bazooka, and
government has pulled out a nail file. That’s the government way, and
that’s one reason why we are missing out on top workers who might be
willing to work for their country.

Obviously, government will never be able to compete toe-to-toe with the
private sector on this score, but, in my view, the status quo will no
longer suffice.

While I believe a shift toward performance-based pay is a step in
the right direction, I also believe that it’s going to take a lot of
hard work to implement these reforms the right way, not a way that will
alienate current or prospective civil servants. I’ve probably gone on
too long already, but if anyone is curious to know what I’ve got in
mind, they should feel free to check out my recent testimony before the House Subcommittee on Government Management.